Cal State University - Los Angeles Student Union Building 5155 State University Drive Los Angeles, CA

August 26 and 27, 1981 10:00 a.m.

AGENDA

Page

81-16-1 Public Hearing to Consider the Petition of 001 Southern California Rapid Transit District for Relief from California Motor Vehicle Emission Control Standards and to Consider Impacts of Requiring Engines in all California Buses to Meet Standards No More Stringent than Applicable Federal Standards.

SMOKING NOT PERMITTED AT MEETINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCESBOARD.

ITEM NO.: 81-16-1

Public Hearing to Consider the Petition of Southern CaliforniaRapid Transit District for Relief from California Motor VehicleEmission Control Standards and to Consider Impacts of RequiringEngines in all California Buses to Meet Standards No MoreStringent Than Applicable Federal Standards.

SUMMARY

On January 10, 1980, the Southern California Rapid TransitDistrict (RTD) submitted a request to the Air Resources Board(ARB) that it be allowed to use federally certified 1980 modelyear General Motors engines in a fleet of 940 new buses it waspurchasing, rather than engines meeting the more stringentCalifornia emission standards.

RTD contended that the fuel cost penalty associated with theCalifornia engine compared to the federal engine outweighed theair pollution benefits obtained by use of the California engine. Further, RTD asserted that the increase in fuel consumption wouldresult in higher operating costs and lost revenue that wouldrequire a cutback of transit service and produce an attendantincrease in passenger car usage. RTD claimed that the emissionsresulting from the increase in passenger car usage would offsetthe emission reductions resulting from use of Californiacertified engines.

Staff denied RTD's request based on a determination that morefuel efficient engines were available than the one RTD used forits analysis, and that even if all of RTD's claims with respectto reduced service were true the use of California engines wouldstill reduce emissions.

RTD petitioned the ARB for a public hearing on the matter, whichwas held on August 27, 1980. At the hearing, RTD submitted newdata which was not previously available for staff analysis. RTDalso revised its request and sought an exemption allowing RTD torebuild new California certified engines to federalspecifications at the first overhaul in approximately 2 « years. The Board determined that the new issues raised by RTD at thehearing required further analysis, and therefore deferred action. The Board created a subcommittee of Dr. Laurence Caretto, ViceChairman, and Dr. Alvin Gordon to study the issues and makerecommendations to the Board's Chairwoman.

In May, 1981, the staff submitted a report to the subcommitteeanalyzing the issues raised at the August 27, 1980 publichearing. On June 2, 1981, the staff report was transmitted toRTD for its analysis and response. It is anticipated that theBoard subcommittee will receive RTD's response to the staffreport and will complete and make available to the Board and thepublic its final report in advance of the August 26, 1981hearing.

The May staff report to the Board subcommittee analyzedemissions, performance, fuel economy and availability of busesusing new California and federal engines, and also evaluatedbuses now being used by RTD with 1974 California engines. Staffconcluded that RTD's use of buses with new GM California engineswould result in a major reduction of emissions when compared tobuses having new GM federal engines, with a fuel penalty of 3 «percent. Hydrocarbon (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) combinedemissions reductions of 1.4 tons per day were associated withbuses using the GM California engine at an extremelycost-effective price of about $0.50 per pound of HC + NOxemissions reduction. Staff estimated that the 3 « percent fuel penaltywould cost RTD $0.01 per mile. The report also concluded thatRTD would not have significant route delays if it used Californiaengines, that there is no significant difference in smokeemissions between GM California and federal engines, and that RTDhas several viable options for obtaining intermediate size buseswith California engines. Staff now reaffirms these conclusionsof the May staff report and the supporting analysis.

RTD's request to retrofit the 940 buses it is purchasing fromCalifornia engines to federal engines at the first overhaul in 2«years would similarly result in a 1.4 ton per day HC + NOxemissions increase subsequent to the retrofit. Continuing theuse of California engines after the overhaul would haveapproximately the same cost-effectiveness value of $0.50 perpound of HC + NOx emissions reduction as determined in the Maystaff report. Other adopted HC and NOx control measures cost upto six times as much per pound of pollutant reduced; the existingmotor vehicle inspection program, costs four times as much perpound. The fuel penalty associated with California engines willincrease RTD's bus operations costs by less than one cent perpassenger boarding.

In response to a bill pending before the Assembly TransportationCommittee (SB 274, Foran), the Board staff agreed to consider theeffects of requiring engines in California buses to meetstandards no more stringent than federal standards. The staffreport addresses this issue.

SB 274 would exempt all buses from using California certifiedengines. The bill would apply to approximately 37,000 busesstatewide, including municipal transit, school, church, andcharter buses. Staff estimates that the total increase in HC +NOx resulting from SB 274 would be approximately 21.3 tons perday. This emission increase would offset about 15 percent of thebenefits of the existing inspection and maintenance program forpassenger cars.